Wilfried Zaha V the FA

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF A FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSION B E T W E E N :- WILFRIED ZAHA Appellant and THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION Respondent WRITTEN DECISION AND REASONS OF THE APPEAL BOARD Appeal Board: Graeme McPherson QC (Chairperson) Tony Agana Udo Onwere Secretary to Appeal Board: Paddy McCormack (Regulatory Commissions & Appeals Manager) Date: 15 February 2019 Venue: Wembley Stadium Appearances: Nick De Marco QC (Appellant’s Representative) David Nichol (Head of Legal, Crystal Place FC) Rebecca Turner (FA Regulatory Advocate) 1 (A) Introduction and Background 1) By letter dated 31 January 2019 the Football Association (‘the FA’) charged Wilfried Zaha (‘the Player’) with Misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E3. We refer to that as ‘the Charge’. 2) The FA’s case in support of the Charge was that the Player’s behaviour following his dismissal during the Premier League match between Southampton FC (‘SFC’) and Crystal Palace FC (‘the Club’) on 30 January 2019 (‘the fixture’) amounted to improper conduct. With the Charge the FA served on the Player a) An Extraordinary Incident Report form completed by the match referee, Andre Marriner. That Report stated as follows: ‘In the 87th minute of the game I had reason to issue two cautions and then send off [the Player] of [the Club]. He reacted to his sending off by firstly refusing to leave the field of play, and was persuaded to do so by a team mate and an opposing player, whilst leaving he stopped and sarcastically applauded my decision in my direction on at least four separate occasions before finally being escorted down the tunnel by a member of [the Club] coaching staff’; and b) Video clips of what the FA termed ‘the incident’. 3) The FA designated the matter as a Non-Standard Case on the basis that the incident had occurred outside the jurisdiction of the match referee. 4) Following discussions between the FA and the Player’s Representatives the FA confirmed that, on the basis that the Player intended to admit the Charge, its position as to sanction would be that a) The Player’s conduct warranted a sporting sanction, and b) A 1 match touchline suspension (in addition to any proportionate financial penalty) would represent an appropriate sanction. The FA of course accepted that the Regulatory Commission was not bound to adopt that position and retained ‘ultimate discretion’ as to the sanction, if any, to be imposed on the Player. 2 5) On 5 February 2019 the Player submitted his Reply Form to the FA. He admitted the Charge and requested a personal hearing for the purpose of addressing the Regulatory Commission on the question of the appropriate sanction to be imposed on him. In advance of the hearing the Player submitted a) Witness statements from the Player, Roy Hodgson (the Club Manager) and Dr Muhammad Zafar Iqbal (Head of Medical at the Club), and b) A Reply prepared by Nick De Marco QC on his behalf (‘the Player’s Reply’). The Player’s Reply explained that i) The Player disagreed with the FA’s position that a 1 match suspension was an appropriate sanction, and ii) The Player’s position was that, in all the circumstances, there should be no suspension and that a combination of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct, a proportionate fine and a requirement to pay a contribution to the Regulatory Commission’s costs of the hearing would be an appropriate sanction. 6) The Player’s Reply helpfully summarised the Player’s position in very clear terms. It was made clear that the Player a) Admitted the Charge, b) Accepted that his conduct had been improper, c) Regretted his conduct, and d) Apologised to the match referee and to the FA for his conduct. Without detracting from such matters, the Player’s Reply explained as mitigation (at paragraph 4): ‘In short 4.1 The Player has been subject to a number of serious and deliberate fouls during his playing career in the Premier League. Some of the evidence relied upon demonstrates he is deliberately targeted by opposing teams for fouls 4.2 Some of those fouls have led to serious injury preventing the Player from playing for long periods of time 4.3 During [the fixture] the Player believed he was subject to a number of unfair challenges from James Ward-Prowse as well as a number of other players, some of which were not given by the referee as fouls 4.4 In the 86th minute of [the fixture] the Player believed he was pushed over the left touchline by Mr Ward-Prowse, impeding his ability to control the ball 4.5 The Player mistakenly believed the referee had awarded him a free kick and he attempted to take the ball from Mr Ward-Prowse so as to take the free kick 3 4.6 Mr Ward-Prowse then faked throwing the ball at the Player and raised his hands to the Player’s face, while mocking him for not being able to take the ball 4.7 The Player reacted by pushing Mr Ward-Prowse’s hand away 4.8 The Player was then shown a yellow card by the referee. Because of his frustration he then sarcastically clapped the referee for showing him the card. This led to the referee showing him a second yellow card and dismissing him from the field of play 4.9 The Player did not leave the field immediately and again sarcastically clapped the referee. However he did leave the pitch relatively quickly and did not confront the referee’. 7) A hearing took place on 6 February 2019 before an FA Regulatory Commission (‘the Commission’) comprising Ifeanyi Odogwu (Chairperson and Independent Legal Panel Member), Marvin Robinson (Independent Football Panel Member) and Bradley Pritchard (Independent Football Panel Member). The Player was represented by Mr De Marco QC. The FA was represented by Rebecca Turner. 8) At the hearing before the Commission a) On behalf of the FA Ms Turner i) Took the Commission through the video footage. As set out in paragraph 10 of the Commission’s Decision and Written Reasons, she highlighted what the FA contended were the ‘significant features’ that had occurred after the Player’s dismissal. Those features included (on the FA’s case) (1) 4 separate instances – spread over a total of 32 seconds and each separated by only a few seconds - of the Player sarcastically applauding the referee. The first was said to have followed the Player ‘approaching the Referee and … leaning closer’. The last was described as ‘the most averse and theatrical’ (2) A reluctance to leave the field of play, causing one of the Player’s team mates (twice) and an SFC player to ‘encourage him to move along’ ii) Accepted that the Player’s conduct had not been aggressive iii) Argued that the absence of aggression did not necessarily detract from the severity of the Player’s conduct; the FA’s case was that the Player’s theatrical, overt and sarcastic applause had directly undermined the referee and made a mockery of his integrity 4 iv) Contended that the fact that the post-dismissal sarcastic applause was a continuation of the very conduct for which the Player had been given a second caution (and so which had led to his dismissal) should be viewed as an aggravating factor; in essence, the FA contended that because he had just been dismissed for such conduct, the Player must have known that his sarcastic applause was unacceptable, yet repeated such conduct on 4 further occasions following his dismissal in a deliberate attempt to undermine the referee further; b) The Player gave evidence. He repeated his admission of the Charge and his acceptance that his conduct in not leaving the pitch immediately and continuing to sarcastically applaud the referee had been improper. He reiterated his deep regret for his conduct and apologised again to the referee and to the FA. Without wanting to detract from that position, he explained i) that his actions were the result of him having been, in his mind, provoked by the SFC player and then unfairly treated by the referee, causing a loss of control on his part, and ii) that the FA’s interpretation of the video clip as showing a refusal on his part to leave the field of play was incorrect; he was always walking off the pitch, and his team mate had not approached him to encourage him in that regard – his team mate had approached him only to encourage him to stop applauding; c) Mr Hodgson gave evidence. That evidence comprised principally character evidence, but Mr Hodgson also confirmed that the Player had in the past often been targeted by opposition teams. Newspaper articles were submitted on behalf of the Player to support that general proposition. In addition Dr Iqbal – who did not give oral evidence before the Commission – confirmed in his statement i) That the Player had been targeted by opposition players and appeared to be fouled with disproportionate frequency, and ii) That the Player had been injured as a result of fouls. Dr Iqbal also explained that the Player had frequently demonstrated frustration and upset after matches because of a belief that opposing players were trying to harm him and that referees were ignoring fouls on him and/or punishing him when he protested. Dr Iqbal stated 5 ‘The Player always says before matches that he has no intention of causing any problems for opposition player or officials but I know the deliberate targeting of him with the aim of injuring him is something he’s not happy with and finds it difficult to control his emotions when it is clear that he not getting the same protection as others.

Load more